Pre/post screening - Sausten

sausten · Mon May 28, 2018 8:41 am

Hi all,
Had this one rejected for 'oversharpened underexposed'. I felt the quality matched my other recent acceptances so I appealed. Came back rejected for 'Blurry Oversharpened Motive Personal Message Quality'.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f503c0510d
Personal message was "might work at smaller size, motive for the wing/stabilizer crop"
So will this crop work at a smaller size, or also be rejected for motive. I thought this motive was fine as there are lots of examples of this framing in the DB.
Thoughts?

Also has this one done for Blurry Category Oversharpened Noise Underexposed
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f91fbe7f67
Its a tough shot to get right so would like some opinions before spending anymore time on it.

Cheers
Steve

airkas1 · Mon May 28, 2018 1:52 pm

Hi Steve,

QR: Cropped that close to the end of the wing/stab isn't great. Likely a case by case thing and quite subjective. But I agree that it's blurry and OS, I'd probably let it go to be honest.

As for the other photo, noisy and exposure are passable, but you've got some DoF issues towards the rear (as one would expect with such a photo). Not sure what the category was, but you should've received a personal message for that. If you want, I can check. Not a huge fan of the crop though.

dutchspotter1 · Mon May 28, 2018 6:56 pm

Regarding the QR, what part do you think is blurry?
I compared it to this shot (same a/c, same location): https://www.airliners.net/photo/Qatar-Ai ... /4995965/L and this one (Paul's) looks much softer (e.g. reg, nose, NWD, etc) than Steve's.
I do agree that Steve's is oversharped. The motive would not be my preference either but it's still acceptable as it is not a 90 deg shot.

sausten · Tue May 29, 2018 8:37 am

airkas1 wrote:
But I agree that it's blurry and OS, I'd probably let it go to be honest.

Sorry Kaz but im pretty shocked at that. The original raw file is about as good as it gets for me. Its quality and sharpness on par, or better than many other shots I've had accepted here. Take a look.
Here is the original raw file
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zifVB ... zfyF8Yc86b
and here is the original raw file for this one edited to 1400pxls wide and accpeted a few weeks ago...

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NW6cv ... ZIe0FHlTvd
I have plenty of other raw files of lower quality that have made it here. Happy to share them. I find it hard to accept that this shot is blurry or lacking quality.
I can accept the oversharpened (although I have seen many shots with more obvious jaggies accpeted) and am glad that the underexposed was overturned, but I am really curious where the blur is.

dutchspotter1 wrote:
Regarding the QR, what part do you think is blurry?
I compared it to this shot (same a/c, same location): https://www.airliners.net/photo/Qatar-Ai ... /4995965/L and this one (Paul's) looks much softer (e.g. reg, nose, NWD, etc) than Steve's.
I do agree that Steve's is oversharped. The motive would not be my preference either but it's still acceptable as it is not a 90 deg shot.

One of the ways I seek to improve is by comparing my shots to those accepted, especially by crew members. I agree that Paul's shot looks softer than my edit (and appears to lose details).

airkas1 wrote:
As for the other photo, noisy and exposure are passable, but you've got some DoF issues towards the rear (as one would expect with such a photo). Not sure what the category was, but you should've received a personal message for that. If you want, I can check. Not a huge fan of the crop though.

Yeah I've never tried uploading this angle before. Are the DOF issues necessarily a killer, or are they considered unavoidable (and hence accpetable) in a shot like this? Just curious.

Cheers
Steve

spompert · Tue May 29, 2018 9:06 am

It looks sharp to me. But there is some heathaze in the original (although minor). Maybe this causes some problems with the edited photo?

airkas1 · Tue May 29, 2018 1:18 pm

Hey Steve,

So I just had another look with a fresh pair of eyes and your originals. The original is indeed not as blurry as I thought and you should be able to make a passable out of it. I took the liberty to make one (also for me to see what I could make of it). I found it to become easily oversharpened and only used 1 pass of sharpening (values 30%, 0,3px, remove Gaussian blur). I ended up using the eraser on the wings and lower aft fuselage, titles, tail and windowline. Thus removing any sharpening from them. In my opinion this gives a better end result than in your edit above. I also found your edit to be underexposed (even for low light).

Your edit: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f503c0510d
My edit: https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 1eb74402a8

I will delete the photo from my queue once you've confirmed that you've seen/saved it (if needed).

I also agree Paul's photo is a bit blurry and soft as well.

Regarding the crop/DoF on the other photo, it's too much for me and I doubt it will get accepted, sorry.

P.S. In hindsight my QR edit is a bit undersatured, but that shouldn't matter for illustrating the rest.

JakTrax · Tue May 29, 2018 10:32 pm

I must admit, I'm struggling to see any blur in Steve's original file - could it be a case of looking too hard for something that isn't actually there? I fail to see how current photographic technology could produce a sharper image. I do see a lot of heat-haze, however, which I imagine is going to be hard to hide.

Karl

Runway28L · Wed May 30, 2018 2:29 am

I agree with Stefan and Karl... The original looks pretty sharp to me. Although heat haze from the exhaust is very prevalent, it doesn't seem to affect the aircraft that much. I did have a photo recently where that was the case and it was still accepted so who knows. It can really get down to subjectivity sometimes.

sausten · Wed May 30, 2018 10:14 am

Hi all,
Thanks for taking the time to provide some feedback.

Glad to hear the original is indeed sharp enough. Even after years of uploading here, I still struggle to get the sharpening right. I've had another go taking on Kaz's advice. Any thoughts on this one...
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 628345aa14

Also, any thoughts on this one...
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... adc-15.jpg

Thanks
Steve

sausten · Wed May 30, 2018 10:17 am

Sorry, second link is wrong. Try this...
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 21ee4abadc

Thanks
Steve

johnr · Thu May 31, 2018 3:19 am

It looks like the QR has been accepted and as usual is racing its way to the Top 5. Did this shot get priority screening? If it did was this a shot of a special flight or some such thing? Regards.

sausten · Thu May 31, 2018 7:48 am

Yeah both were accpeted last night. Not sure what happened. Neither was marked for priority screening but somehow got picked up with other shots I had in the queue

Thanks all for the help getting the QR shot on. What still puzzles me is that it was knocked back for 'blurry' at 1400pxls but original was sharp and was eventually accepted at 1600pxls. How is blurriness introduced in the editing stage? The only thing I did different between the first and second versions was resize larger and apply one less pass of sharpening.

Cheers
Steve

airkas1 · Thu May 31, 2018 8:35 am

With my current camera, I've found that sometimes resizing the photo to a smaller size looks worse than at a larger size. Hence where in the past screeners would comment 'better smaller' (which still happens), I sometimes now think a larger size will be better. Not saying that's exactly what's going on, just an interpretation of mine.

45272455674 · Thu May 31, 2018 10:25 am

sausten wrote:
Yeah both were accpeted last night. Not sure what happened. Neither was marked for priority screening but somehow got picked up with other shots I had in the queue

Thanks all for the help getting the QR shot on. What still puzzles me is that it was knocked back for 'blurry' at 1400pxls but original was sharp and was eventually accepted at 1600pxls. How is blurriness introduced in the editing stage? The only thing I did different between the first and second versions was resize larger and apply one less pass of sharpening.

Cheers
Steve

Whatever you did, they look great. The A380 too is very crisp in the Dubai Expo logos.

I think cameras now, Nikon at least is up at 45mp now, resizing down to 1280 or smaller seems to be no longer worth it. The only hazard with such cameras is that they show up any faults with less than perfect lenses or worse, less than perfect focusing.

I remember with my D800e using it for one of the well known major NSW state functions and we put the images out at 3000x2000 for the journos and they needed no special processing. They looked as crisp at 3000px wide as an edited image might have looked at 1600px wide. Unbelievable. I still have that camera and it still astonishes me. Not bad for something I purchased on the day it was launched and just thought I'd on-sell it at a tidy profit. Took one or two photos with it and any thoughts of selling it like that were out the window.

I think Kas is right with this observation.

sausten · Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:15 am

Hi again,
Hoping for some advice on this one. Rejected for Soft Vignetting
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8b31502b4a

Firstly, is the sky so bad? Looks to me just like the sky in other wide angle shots. There are no dark areas in the top corners either.
Secondly, what can be done for such vignetting? Not a problem I've come across too often.

Thanks
Steve

jelpee · Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:35 am

I don't see softness or vignetting.

Jehan

310815 · Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:41 am

sausten wrote:
Hi again,
Hoping for some advice on this one. Rejected for Soft Vignetting
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 8b31502b4a

Firstly, is the sky so bad? Looks to me just like the sky in other wide angle shots. There are no dark areas in the top corners either.
Secondly, what can be done for such vignetting? Not a problem I've come across too often.

Thanks
Steve

I can only echo you.. Looks like any other sky on such wide-angle shots and it doesn't have dark corners or so.

Julien

airkas1 · Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:43 am

Fine for me as well.

JakTrax · Tue Jun 12, 2018 4:39 pm

I have said many times that the screening process is looking too hard for faults that aren't there, whilst often missing the glaringly obvious ones. How can the line possibly be 'we look to accept' when this gets the boot for vignetting? This is exactly the reason many don't upload any more, and it's A.net's loss, not the photographers'.

I'm trying not to be critical of the screening team as a whole but stuff like this doesn't exactly promote confidence in the process. The problems are there but never seem to get fixed.

Whilst I agree that that the bulk of the team may well look to accept rather than reject, the screening task by nature is one that will attract those intent on power-tripping, simply because they can.

sausten · Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:20 pm

Thanks all for the replies. Glad to know I'm not missing anything. I have just appealed. Will keep my fingers crossed and let you know.

Steve

jelpee · Wed Jun 13, 2018 10:56 am

Glad to see it got accepted on appeal!

The process is not perfect by any means. Sometimes things are seen that are not issues and other times things get by which should have been caught. Short of having every image screened by a panel...we are open to consider other recommendations.

Jehan

JakTrax · Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:45 pm

Jehan,

I understand that it's a human process but there should be more consistency - when a screener is seeing something that isn't there, this is not looking to accept; it is looking to reject.

sausten · Fri Jun 15, 2018 6:32 am

Would love some opinions on this one.
Rejected for overexposed oversharpened.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... ce55f40e2b
I get its bright but that is a true representation of the light at the time. Lowering the exposure makes the dark areas of the tail too dark. Sharpness looks ok to me. Titles are tricky on UPS but seem to match this one

Thanks

Steve

dutchspotter1 · Fri Jun 15, 2018 7:18 am

Doesn't look overexposed to me, but titles and nose are indeed oversharped. Also there is a cyan cast.

sausten · Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:38 am

Thanks for the confirmation of os.
I have tried another edit with less sharpening on those areas.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f1c4d7a8ce
Any thoughts?
Steve

dutchspotter1 · Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:57 am

Looks good to me, except the bottom side of the nose is still a bit oversharped.

airkas1 · Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:01 pm

Not great in general (not per se the sharpening, but it looks iffy for some reason). But I can't really pinpoint it, so I guess passable.

sausten · Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:20 am

UPS just came back rejected for Blurry Soft
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f1c4d7a8ce
Not sure what the iffy part is you refer to Kas, but the original does not appear blurry and this edit seems comparable in quality to other additions to the db.

Can I also get an opinion on these shots. Also rejected at same time (presumably by same screener)
AA 789 -https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/5/7/7/5051775.jpg?v=v4685f633f46 Rejected for Overexposed Soft Heat Haze (a previous version was rejected for soft underexposed. I brightened and added another pass of USM only).
F-16 - https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 2f141f9a65 Rejected for Blurry Oversharpened Noise (I see no evidence of these issues to warrant rejection)
LAN 788 - https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 36d497bd50 Rejected for Blurry Overexposed Soft (In trying to hit the sites preference for bright images, I probably did brighten too much). Need help seeing the blurry areas. Windowline?

Thanks for the feedback!
Steve

sausten · Sat Jun 23, 2018 6:39 am

Here's the AA link https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 685f633f46
Cheers
Steve

HarryLi · Sat Jun 23, 2018 8:14 am

Hi, Steve
I don't know what the origin looks like but this version does look bit of blurry especially the title "Services". Also consider that is iffy Lol.
Regarding to the AA B789, i think using smaller size could be better. Reducing highlight slightly could be better since the glare in the aircraft is pretty distractive.Heat haze looks not bad to me,using smaller size might be better.
I am not quiet sure about the F/16. But i don't see OS and noise from this one. Those letters on the aircrafts might be bit of blurry.
LAN B787 is overexposed for sure. Glare and the top of the aircraft is distractive. The size of it is too large to satisfy the quality. Using smaller size could be better and it does show blurry and soft at this siz .

Cheers,
Harry

sausten · Sun Jun 24, 2018 6:37 am

Thanks for the reply Harry. I've been uploading at 1400 and 1600pxls lately and have had more success than the previous two years uploading at 1200. As Kas said in a post above.

airkas1 wrote:
With my current camera, I've found that sometimes resizing the photo to a smaller size looks worse than at a larger size. Hence where in the past screeners would comment 'better smaller' (which still happens), I sometimes now think a larger size will be better. Not saying that's exactly what's going on, just an interpretation of mine.

I was getting a lot of blurry rejections at 1200 and while not completely gone, the number of blurry rejections I've received in the past few weeks has dramatically reduced when uploading at a larger size. May I ask where you see blur on the LAN shot?

Thanks

Steve

airkas1 · Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:54 am

Hey Steve,

- The UPS just always looks off (not just yours, but every photo. The titles are a pain to get right). I would agree that it looks on par with many other UPS photos in the DB.
- The AA has a strong line of glare on the fuselage, which is likely the cause for the overexposed rejection. Perhaps reducing highlights will help, but otherwise not a whole lot to do about that I'm afraid. I don't find it soft or exceptionally hazed.
- The F-16 photo looks a bit cluttered, but since it wasn't rejected for that and I don't find the other issues too bad, I'll say passable.
- LAN: agree on overexposed and soft.

sausten · Tue Jun 26, 2018 8:23 am

airkas1 wrote:
Hey Steve,

- The UPS just always looks off (not just yours, but every photo. The titles are a pain to get right). I would agree that it looks on par with many other UPS photos in the DB.
- The AA has a strong line of glare on the fuselage, which is likely the cause for the overexposed rejection. Perhaps reducing highlights will help, but otherwise not a whole lot to do about that I'm afraid. I don't find it soft or exceptionally hazed.
- The F-16 photo looks a bit cluttered, but since it wasn't rejected for that and I don't find the other issues too bad, I'll say passable.
- LAN: agree on overexposed and soft.

Thanks Kas

F-16 just accepted on appeal

I also think the UPS is within acceptable standards. Worth an appeal?

Appreciate the feedback,

Steve

sausten · Sat Jun 30, 2018 2:03 am

UPS was accepted on appeal.

Thanks all for the feedback.

Steve

sausten · Sun Jul 01, 2018 2:00 am

Hey everyone,
I have three more rejects I'd appreciate feedback on before appealing.

RAAF MRTT - https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9f7b5321f1 Rejected for -Overexposed Soft Low in Frame Noise Heat Haze (I see no evidence of any of these issue. Exposure is conssitent with the light with no blow outs, sharpness comparable to other recent accpetances, framed as I usually do with windowline in centre of image, no noise evident or jelly from heat haze)

Cathay 777 - https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f2d3962ed0 Rejected for soft. Seems OK to me.

CA-3 Wirraway - https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7bd4a36d05 - Rejected for Category Oversharpened Underexposed. So I forgot to tick warbird so prob can't appeal, but I see no jaggies or issues with exposure.

Would appreciate any help identifying these issues.
Thanks
Steve

dutchspotter1 · Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:54 am

RAAF MRTT: light is bad on this one, causing the top of the fuselage to be (too) bright, especially near the nose. If you make the photo darker, the rest of the fuselage will become too dark. It's hard to get this fixed. I also agree with low in frame as there is too much sky. Reg on the tail is quite soft. Noise and heathaze seem OK to me.

Cathay: has some soft parts, e.g. aft windows, right engine

Warbird: expsore is fine but it might be a little oversharped (especially the titles). Not completely sure though, I'd need to compare it with a version that has less sharpening.

JakTrax · Wed Jul 04, 2018 6:06 pm

That CX looks slightly blurry towards the rear, and generally soft all over to me.

Karl

sausten · Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:44 am

Thanks for the opinions.
I have had another go at the RAAF MRTT. Agree that light is not great, but I have others accepted from this day/time in same light so I think I can make it work. Here's my latest edit
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d2be0fe853
Also added some sharpening to the CX 777.
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 3b012ba209
Thanks
Steve

dutchspotter1 · Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:19 am

RAAF MRTT could use some more contrast.

sausten · Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:46 am

dutchspotter1 wrote:
RAAF MRTT could use some more contrast.

Thanks mate. Hows this version?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... f5e6c3c213

Steve

sausten · Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:15 am

Can I also get some help on this one, rejected for blurry, Overexposed Soft Noise
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 36f701dced
Here's the original raw file.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1OJ-NC ... iHWb-Rkflb
Quality seems good to me. Having a hard time seeing blur or noise in this edit. Not great at getting exposure right lately. Would love to know how it is being judged in screening lately.
Thanks in advance.
Steve

HarryLi · Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:47 pm

Hello Setve,
I can't access to your Original Raw File link since it says that i need permission. But at your editing version which does look blurry at the title, windows maybe due to too soft (Smaller size would be better i think). Noise looks not bad to me actually. Reducing highlight slightly might be better (For Overexposure rejection).

Cheers,
Harry

sausten · Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:35 am

Sorry bout the bad link. Try this one...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OJ-NCz ... sp=sharing

Steve

sausten · Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:25 am

Hi all,
Had this one rejected a few days ago for '' Blurry Editing Personal Message''
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... d8f55a0b70
Screeners message was "CA visible" I'm not sure what that means. Any help?
Seems comparable to this one (also rejected and accepted on appeal)

Cheers
Steve

DL747 · Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:07 pm

The CA refers to chromatic abberation, which I do see a bit of. There's some purpley fringing around the front two windows. I also see blur, very slight overall but most noticeable at the radome in the nose. I feel like the rejection is valid, you may have better luck at 1200, not sure if that'll minimize the visibility of the blur enough though.

sausten · Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:30 am

Thanks DL for the feedback. I have tried a smaller edit. Any better?
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 7a993f2324

Also having trouble with this one. Seems a pretty simply sunny side on to me but have had two rejections so far. Here is the latest rejection
https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/air ... 9bcad97d9b
'BlurryOversharpenedPersonal MessageQuality' Personal message was '' likely heat hazed''
Here is the original. Would love some opinions on the quality of the raw file. Can't see any heat haze really. Nor can I see OS or blur on the edit.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zfb8Gw ... sp=sharing

Thanks
Steve

dutchspotter1 · Fri Aug 03, 2018 10:02 am

On the full-size pic heathaze is clearly visible at the top of the fuselage (a lot of bumps rather than a straight line).

sausten · Sat Aug 04, 2018 2:16 am

Right. Must say though, looks pretty normal/good to me. I've seen a lot worse accepted. I was really looking around the gear and lower portions of the aircraft.

DL747 · Sat Aug 04, 2018 2:31 am

sausten wrote:
Right. Must say though, looks pretty normal/good to me. I've seen a lot worse accepted.

Mate, I'd agree with you there. The 429 looks pretty good to me imo, there's a very slight blur right at the nose and on the tail, but that's pretty nit picky. As far as the Cathay, maybe try at 1200, and hit the windows/reg with another shot of sharpening.

airkas1 · Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:55 am

The Bell looks alright.
Cathay is marginal. There is some haze and the windowline and titles look soft/hazed/blurry/iffy. Otherwise it looks passable, so maybe some selective and cerful editing may do the trick.

DL747 wrote:
As far as the Cathay, maybe try at 1200, and hit the windows/reg with another shot of sharpening.

Doing both of those things will make the photo look worse in my experience.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net